[QUOTE]Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
I bought my first SLR when I was 11, a Pentax ME super. 1979. I carried it around my ever since then. Retired it 2 years ago. I love the thing, but it just doesn't cut it now.

Digital is faster than film. The 2 new Canons have ISO of 3200, film maxed out at what, 1000?

[QUOTE]

Huh? I can push Tri-X in Acufine to 3200 -- easy. And it looks like film -- not in camera processed digital. Are there downsides to three stop pushes? Sure, but you've got the same downside with digital. The bonus of Acufine and Rondinal and films like Tri-X is that you can get just about any look you need. Fine grain, golf-ball grain -- and everything in between. You just need to know what the limitations are. Digital is the same way.

I sense a film versus digital thread here.

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
I bought my first SLR when I was 11, a Pentax ME super. 1979. I carried it around my ever since then. Retired it 2 years ago. I love the thing, but it just doesn't cut it now.

Digital is faster than film. The 2 new Canons have ISO of 3200, film maxed out at what, 1000?

[QUOTE]

Huh? I can push Tri-X in Acufine to 3200 -- easy. And it looks like film -- not in camera processed digital. Are there downsides to three stop pushes? Sure, but you've got the same downside with digital. The bonus of Acufine and Rondinal and films like Tri-X is that you can get just about any look you need. Fine grain, golf-ball grain -- and everything in between. You just need to know what the limitations are. Digital is the same way.

I sense a film versus digital thread here.

All I want to know is how can I use a zoom lens, indoor/low light, fast action and still get a good picture? Is there anything other than a $5,000.00 lens that is going to do this for me?

Nikon D40 is your answer. 6MP, great low-light resolution. Get the kit lens (the included telephoto) and a fast 50mm -- and you're set.

Head out to Fry's or Best Buy (ugh, I know -- but they're cheap) or check out http://www.newegg.com -- either way, the buy-in is low.

If you have another $200, get the Nikon D40x (same as D40 but more megapixels. The idea is that you want, say, 10MP for the ability to print a larger photo. The MP don't impact your overall image quality -- just the size you want to eventually print to. For most mortals, 6MP is fine. This makes for a 8X10 without any pixel distortion or artifacts. If you plan to larger photographs, then you might want to go on the megapixel hunt -- more MP, larger prints. You can always get the Hasselblad digital if you have 25K to blow and need an entire wall filled with a photograph.)

A Canon is another option. Either one will take superb pictures. BlueEchoes is a Canon guy. I'm a Nikon guy. The debate is endless, but the results are identical.

BTW -- you don't need a 5K lens. Folks want you to *think* you need the expensive lenses, but check out (for example) the Nikon 55-200:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_..._4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

Great lens and has the built in "VR" hold-it-steady-for-me technology.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
I bought my first SLR when I was 11, a Pentax ME super. 1979. I carried it around my ever since then. Retired it 2 years ago. I love the thing, but it just doesn't cut it now.

Digital is faster than film. The 2 new Canons have ISO of 3200, film maxed out at what, 1000?

[QUOTE]

Huh? I can push Tri-X in Acufine to 3200 -- easy. And it looks like film -- not in camera processed digital. Are there downsides to three stop pushes? Sure, but you've got the same downside with digital. The bonus of Acufine and Rondinal and films like Tri-X is that you can get just about any look you need. Fine grain, golf-ball grain -- and everything in between. You just need to know what the limitations are. Digital is the same way.

I sense a film versus digital thread here.

All I want to know is how can I use a zoom lens, indoor/low light, fast action and still get a good picture? Is there anything other than a $5,000.00 lens that is going to do this for me?

Let me translate...Fish wants to be able to take a decent picture of a duck, say in a tree.

Fish, I am sure that Blue Echoes will take a picture of a freakin wooden duck in a tree for less than 5k.....

quote:

Originally posted by IMJ:
Fish, I am sure that Blue Echoes will take a picture of a freakin wooden duck in a tree for less than 5k.....

Fish always takes offense to the "rich" term bestowed upon him. However, in my neck of the woods...5 blocks away from Fish....anyone who is willing to spend 6k on a camera, for no apparent business reason, is rich. Really rich....Richy Rich Rich.

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by IMJ:
Fish, I am sure that Blue Echoes will take a picture of a freakin wooden duck in a tree for less than 5k.....

Fish always takes offense to the "rich" term bestowed upon him. However, in my neck of the woods...5 blocks away from Fish....anyone who is willing to spend 6k on a camera, for no apparent business reason, is rich. Really rich....Richy Rich Rich.

You crack me up....but isn't your neighbor that wants to buy an 8k camera?????

btw...this is a fun site to snoop on and find out where the money really is follow the money

quote:

Originally posted by IMJ:
Fish, I am sure that Blue Echoes will take a picture of a freakin wooden duck in a tree for less than 5k.....

Maybe if he took the picture of your avatar I could tell whether that guy is naked.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:


You crack me up....but isn't it your neighbor that who wants to buy an 8k camera?????

btw...this is a fun site to snoop on and find out where the money really is follow the money

Gross! My "Duck"worth contribution is prominently displayed for all to see. My Obama donation is also displayed...way back when....I was so ahead of the curve.

And my neighbor uses it for a business....remember, you are a lawyer and you take terrible pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:

What's that Duckworth?

We have a photography thread now?

Jeez, where have you been? It's been the hottest thread of the new year. Or at least the hottest thread of Wednesday.

BTW, why haven't you added your 58 cents?

I do not own a 5k lens. Not even close. You can get a Canon IS zoom lens for less than $500 bucks, see here:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-S...id=1199967621&sr=8-1

This is a great lens. You pop this on Canon's new 40d camera or the Rebel XTI and you are all set. You are talking $1500 for both ($1100 for the Rebel and lens), and you get an absolutely killer setup. The 40d is probably my second favorite camera out there right now.

Here are the differences between Canon and Nikon that I have found.

Canon:

Better Sensor (they make their own sensors and have it perfected), better color, better noise reduction, faster.

Nikon:

Mirror Lock up button (this is actually a HUGE selling point for them and Canon users salivate about this on a daily basis), double exposure option (another kick arse option not on a Canon), menu structure much cleaner. Lenses are really strong on the both the low end and high end. Their IS lenses are not close to Canon's though.

But the biggest difference between the 2 is the fit. The reason I went Canon way back when was because their body style fits my hand better. I am left handed, but all cameras are set up for a righty. Canon has menu buttons that worked better in my hand and also had buttons that my left hand could reach while shooting. Comfort is very important if you are going to be halling a DSLR around instead of a point and shoot since the weight and size is much larger. It came down to how it fit in my hand more than anything.

And I should say it is all about the results. If you are creating wonderful images with a $5 pin hole camera, or a $40k Hasselblad, it really doesn't matter if you are creating images that you like.

58, thanks for joining in, now help me out fellow Canon user!

here is something that film/digital/canon/nikon users can all agree on.

This thing is satan:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010901photosimile5000.asp

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:


You crack me up....but isn't it your neighbor that who wants to buy an 8k camera?????

btw...this is a fun site to snoop on and find out where the money really is follow the money

Gross! My "Duck"worth contribution is prominently displayed for all to see. My Obama donation is also displayed...way back when....I was so ahead of the curve.

And my neighbor uses it for a business....remember, you are a lawyer and you take terrible pictures.

Notice that my contribution did not appear????? I'll let you in on that secret someday.

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
Nikon D40 is your answer. 6MP, great low-light resolution. Get the kit lens (the included telephoto) and a fast 50mm -- and you're set.

Head out to Fry's or Best Buy (ugh, I know -- but they're cheap) or check out http://www.newegg.com -- either way, the buy-in is low.

If you have another $200, get the Nikon D40x (same as D40 but more megapixels. The idea is that you want, say, 10MP for the ability to print a larger photo. The MP don't impact your overall image quality -- just the size you want to eventually print to. For most mortals, 6MP is fine. This makes for a 8X10 without any pixel distortion or artifacts. If you plan to larger photographs, then you might want to go on the megapixel hunt -- more MP, larger prints. You can always get the Hasselblad digital if you have 25K to blow and need an entire wall filled with a photograph.)

A Canon is another option. Either one will take superb pictures. BlueEchoes is a Canon guy. I'm a Nikon guy. The debate is endless, but the results are identical.

BTW -- you don't need a 5K lens. Folks want you to *think* you need the expensive lenses, but check out (for example) the Nikon 55-200:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_..._4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

Great lens and has the built in "VR" hold-it-steady-for-me technology.

Here's my problem....please tell me how to fix it. Indoor, fast action, no flash, usually anywhere from 30 to 75 feet away from the subject. Can't get clean photos (not blurry).

Using the Pentax KD110, Tamron 28-300 lens, set on action setting. I don't know $hit about all those numbers that you throw around, but I am told that if I want to get that type of zoom lens in low light and get crisp pictures I'll need to spend 5K on some huge lens. FWIW, outside I get great shots with the same setup.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:

You are such a....

Fish my friend, quit using the custom settings. Go into manual mode, and set it to AE or AV (whatever that camera dial is labeled).

Hold please, I am looking up your model...

Okay, you have an highest ISO setting of 3200 on that baby, there may be too much noise on at 3200, so try it first at 1600 and see how they turn out. Set it for AE or AV (Aperture priority in the manual modes) and get that F-Stop low, On that lens, you have a 3.5-5.6. So the more you zoom in, the f-stop will go from 3.5 at its lowest, up to 5.6 at it's lowest. At AV/AE, your shutter speed will automatically set in this mode.

this should give you better results. Keep that baby still as you can as well and you should be fine.

This is a really nice camera, trust me, you should be able to get the results you want with it without shelling out the big bucks for a lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp

Bummer, the K100d has the built in image stabilizing, but still, yours is a really REALLY nice camera. Unfortunately, I cannot find an IS lens that has the Pentax mount.

Here is a link to a review of the K100d, but the K110d is basically the same setup. The review has nice images of the settings and screens you will need to adjust it.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/

If you still need help, at the next GEBB meeting, I can give you a brief walk through.